[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Linux vs. Be vs. Others

To: sujal@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Be vs. Others
From: Wandered Inn <esoteric@denali.atlnet.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:11:25 +0000
CC: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO <am-info@essential.org>
Organization: Nocturnal Aviation Software Design
References: <364918D7.683E506E@worldnet.att.net>
Sender: esoteric@denali.atlnet.com

Sujal Shah wrote:
> 
> Whoa!  I know about Beowulf, run Linux as my main desktop OS, and have
> looked long and hard at Be, Solaris, HP/UX, etc.
> 
> Nothing in what I wrote claimed that Linux was or was not unfit for a
> given server size, task, or desktop use.  Please don't take it as such.

Okay, I sit corrected... :)

> 
> My point was just that these products are not getting the same public
> hype, and customer/media response.  The only example where I said that
> something has a clear advantage over Linux (or any other OS) was Be,
> because I just haven't seen that level of multimedia performance coming
> out of my puny P100 under anything else.  period.

Can't speak to that as I've not seen be, as it cost bucks, I'm not
interested in dropping the cash to find out.

> 
> I have no problem with someone using HP/UX as a desktop OS.  VUE is
> pretty nice.  I just don't see too many people clammoring to get HP/UX
> ported to their favorite processor. :-)
> 
> My only point was that I disagreed with Brett's assertion that Linux
> would hurt Be or other commercial alterna-OS's.  I disagree because I
> think that's like claiming rollerblades hurt car sales.  While I don't
> doubt that you could get around town on your rollerblades, most people
> don't think of them as competing products because they have different
> purposes, different strengths, etc.  They also have significantly
> different costs.

I don't know that the comparison is valid, but for price points.  I know
you mean that Linux is a stripped down, unprotected, slow way to get
around town.  Your point is taken.  I disagree as well, primarily
because there's a lot of territory out there and the territory Linux
might target, appears to be different that that which BE would target.

> 
> Yeah, you've introduced a new factor which is cheaper, but the OS
> performance is only one factor in choosing a platform.  Right now,
> *today*, Be, Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, AmigaOS, etc. all travel in
> different circles, at least as far as mindshare is concerned.  Be and
> MacOS have some inherent advantages over Linux or Windows.  HP/UX
> (mostly because it runs on the mostly rock-solid HP hardware) has some
> advantages over Linux.
> 
> People are hard at work gaining "mindshare" that Linux can be a desktop
> OS.  Obviously, I agree, as I use Linux for all my computing at home
> (except for the occaisionaly game, which I do reboot into *no!* Windows
> :-).  at the same time, people are working on getting Be to be a server
> OS because it has some great Multithreading capabilities, and an amazing
> ability to take advantage of SMP hardware.  My point is that this
> mindshare equation may change, but to claim that today Linux eats away
> at Be's market share is an empty argument.
> 
> Also, Linux isn't the end-all, be-all of OS's, either.  I just happen to
> like it a lot.  Be will probably always be a better
> gaming/multimedia/publishing platform, unless Linux gets re-written at a
> very, very low level.  Besides, even now, BSD could give Linux a serious
> run for it's money in several key areas.

I wouldn't expect that to happen, yet I'm perfectly happy with my Linux
box's performance when running Quake II. :)

> 
> Sujal
> 
> Wandered Inn wrote:
> >
> > Sujal Shah wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree with this assertion for pretty-much one reason:  BeOS, Linux,
> > > BSD, Irix, MacOS X, etc. are not all competing for the same mindshare,
> > > at least not as I understand it.
> > >
> > > Linux, BSD, Solaris compete for the lower-to-midsize market for servers,
> > > competing with NT.  HP/UX, AIX, Solaris, maybe IRIX, Ultrix, and the
> > > other "big iron" *nix's, compete for the higher, higher end of the
> > > market for servers.
> >
> > Do a search on "linux and beowulf."
> >
> > >
> > > BeOS and MacOS X, and maybe the Amiga OS will compete for the desktop
> > > space in particular areas, Be with heavy=duty multimedia capabilities,
> > > and MacOS X with similar (but IMO weaker) multimedia capability,
> > > focusing on graphics, layout, etc.  Along with these guys will be IRIX,
> > > and some (very little) BSD and Linux for the rendering tasks (though Be
> > > looks to be strong there).
> >
> > You focused on a very narrow scope of desktops.  How about the corporate
> > desktop.  Where people, for the most part, use: browser, word process
> > and email.  Linux can do this much better than any of the Microsoft OS's
> > currently.
> >
> > Then theirs the software develpment desktop.  For the 'point and click'
> > pseudo-developer, NT or Win95 work.  For real developers, Linux is
> > robust, but is missing some tools that would be nice to have.
> >
> > >
> > > My point is that Operating Systems are not all the same, nor are they
> > > all competing for the same space, in many cases.  I wouldn't ever
> > > consider Be to be a competitor for Linux or HP/UX because people don't
> > > use the things for the same purposes.  Be has stated from the outset
> > > that they're not trying to create a general use OS, but one focused on
> > > Multimedia (and let me tell you, the performance doing Multimedia tasks
> > > makes Windows, Linux, and the Mac look like rank amateurs, little
> > > baby-OS's).
> > >
> > > MacOS, AmigaOS, Windows are definitely all in the same category because
> > > they're aiming to make a general-purpose OS.  Linux could be considered,
> > > but the hype it's getting is NOT as a general user operating system.
> > > It's getting hyped (and getting apps) mostly for its usability as an
> > > NT/general purpose server replacement.
> >
> > I again disagree,  Linux is certainly a viable solution for the generic
> > office desktop and a development desktop.
> >
> > >
> > > Sujal
> > >
> > > Brett Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 10:27 PM 11/7/98 -0500, Charles Behney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Wall Street loves a Sure Thing. How can you make Linux a darling of stock
> > > > >analysts?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know. However, Linux may (inadvertently) make Microsoft MORE
> > > > of a darling of stock analysts. Why? Because Linux will prevent any new
> > > > commercial operating system -- such as BeOS -- from being able to compete
> > > > with Microsoft's offerings. Linux will compete with them for developer
> > > > mindshare, for sales, and for capital. The result: Microsoft's position
> > > > as the ONLY viable commercial option will -- perversely -- be strengthened.
> > > > Linux will kill off potential competition for it.
> > > >
> > > > --Brett
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net
> > >
> > >        http://home.att.net/~sujal/
> > > Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org
> >
> > --
> > Until later: Geoffrey           esoteric@denali.atlnet.com
> >
> > You mean you paid MONEY for Service Pack '98????
> 
> --
> ------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net
> 
>        http://home.att.net/~sujal/
> Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org

--
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@denali.atlnet.com

You mean you paid MONEY for Service Pack '98????

References:
- Linux vs. Be vs. Others
  - From: Sujal Shah <sujal@worldnet.att.net>

Prev by Date: Berst: Is Intel plotting against MS?
Next by Date: Re: MS says Intel exec is "disgruntled"
Prev by thread: Linux vs. Be vs. Others
Next by thread: Re: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer you on''
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread